The sanitazation of classic characters erases their identity...

The sanitazation of classic characters erases their identity. To me there is not a single example of this evolution charts where the very first is the best one and the last one is the worst one.

Attached: images (3).jpg (929x330, 39.51K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/HL6aY_BXWUc
youtu.be/wlLHZruDCAA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Another one for my south american bros out there

Attached: images (2).jpg (608x334, 45.89K)

>To me there is not a single example of this evolution charts where the very first is the best one and the last one is the worst one.
You uh, get those backwards, my friend....?

>boomer getting mad his favorite 50+ year old cartoon characters change over time

Attached: galotgc.jpg (600x600, 61.98K)

1999 > 1940 > the rest > 2017

usually the middle closer to the beginning ones are the best imo since it's clear the character is slowly evolving into the best, most iconic version of iself

I only remember the 1944, 1953, and 99. I feel both 99 and 44 are the best design while I don't care about the rest.

I like the second one here best. Has a lot of motion and flair, with a more appealing design.

I am 20.

Here's an example where the first designs weren't the best ones.
youtu.be/HL6aY_BXWUc
youtu.be/wlLHZruDCAA

So it looks like the real boomer was all along

things change over time. get over it.

i find this a fascinating concept. you can look at many charts of charactes like garfield, mario, sonic, mickey, donald... and see the COVERGENT EVOLUTION.

they all drift towards looking samey, even before CGI. when they were all hand drawn. what caused them to end up looking the same? what were the designers main intent for the character?

of course things tailored for mass appeal will look samey. but this is something i've been kind of wondering about. what would a niche, particular, not mass-appeal character design evolve like?

72 is the best, notice how the movie version is clearly based on that one

I would never sacrifice authenticity for that. He just looks like one of Disney's Los tres caballeros nothing intersting about it.

>garfield

Anyone got that one?

72 looks like another bullshit mascott. The first one looks like a bastard ready to fuck shit up. Just like it should

You look at him and tell me there is a god

Attached: images (4).jpg (999x299, 41.93K)

if you're complaining about the 3d models it really depends on who is making it.
is a gamble. what i really care about is how expressive is the animation with that 3d model

that got a laugh out of me

>they all drift towards looking samey, even before CGI. when they were all hand drawn. what caused them to end up looking the same?
Model sheets, guidelines, and tighter protection of the brand by the rights holders.
Sonic always looked different in the 90s because Sega had Sonic outsourced several different companies who all interpreted him a different way.
Mario looked different because of the same reason, but also because there wasn’t really an “official” Mario design in the west until the SNES days. It was basically always interpreted from his sprite of from an artist’s specific vision.
Once the brand gets more established, a more cohesive public view of it develops. The company gets more serious about how the characters should be portrayed on products and stuff like that. “Style guides” hardly existed before the 90s.

Attached: file.png (1400x850, 535.9K)

>To me
tertiary thread, let him blog alone

>The first one looks like a bastard
he looks like a crack head

robots in disguise

The redesigns were an improvement, though. Giving parent characters faces lets them get involved in the plot and open up possibilities

God I fucking hate Woody Woodpecker.

Sorry bitch, i gotta express my opinions are fact?

Aside from the first one looking like it's had it's teeth smashed in and the last one being cgi these look pretty interchangeable.

You know...i think Butch Hartman never drew anything good.

The real problem was the flanderized personalities. Everyone got progressively dumber and more immature as the series went on.